AMERIGROUP CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Labor Class Suit------------------------------------------------------------------AMERIGROUP Corporation is awaiting court approval of a settlemententered in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging violationsof labor laws, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On November 22, 2010, Hamel Toure, a former AMERIGROUP New York,LLC marketing representative, filed a putative collective andclass action complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation andAMERIGROUP New York, LLC in the United States District Court,Eastern District of New York. Subsequently, another lawsuit,styled Andrea Burch, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP NewYork, LLC, was consolidated with the Toure case.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint with respect to theseconsolidated cases alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiffs andcertain other employees should have been classified as non-exemptemployees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA") andduring the course of their employment should have receivedovertime and other compensation under the FLSA from October 22,2007 until the entry of judgment and under the New York Labor Law("the NYLL") from October 22, 2004 until the entry of judgment.The Complaint requested certification of the NYLL claims as aclass action under Rule 23, designation of the FLSA claims as acollective action, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, anaward of unpaid overtime compensation, an award of liquidateddamages under the FLSA and the NYLL, pre-judgment interest, aswell as costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief.

On February 2, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principlewith the plaintiffs to settle the litigation and on April 20, 2012the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Theanticipated settlement, which is reflected in the auditedConsolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31,2011, did not have a material impact on the Company?s financialposition, results of operations or cash flows. The terms of thefinal settlement are subject to court approval and there can be noassurance that the court will approve such settlement.

Mr. Cassano, who's playing at the Euro 2012, the European soccertournament, with the Italian national team, yesterday said: "Ihope there are not 'froci' [queers] in our squad."

The footballer was answering a question by a journalist who hadasked him about the presence of gay players in his team.

Now Codacons is representing a group of gays for Italy's firstclass action ever against an anti-gay slur.

A Codacons' statement said: "All the gays who feel offended byCassano's words should ask for compensation for the moral damage.Our lawyers are ready for a class action.

"Cassano's words are dangerous because he is an example forthousands of youngsters and the fact he has said 'sorry' is notenough."

On June 12, after the case made headlines around the world, theItalian footballer said: "I'm so sorry, I didn't want to offendanyone. I'm not homophobic, I only wanted to say that I don'tcare if my mates are gay."

ARCTIC GLACIER: August 13 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set---------------------------------------------------------This notice is to all individuals and entities, wherever they mayreside or be domiciled (other than Excluded Persons as definedbelow), who purchased Units of Arctic Glacier Income Fund duringthe period from March 13, 2002 to September 16, 2008.

READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. YOUMAY NEED TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION.

Please note: This is a summary notice, produced for publicationpurposes, announcing Court approval of the settlement reached inthis litigation. A Long Form Notice, containing additional detailis available on the Administrator's Web site:http://www.nptricepoint.comor Class Counsel's Web site: http://www.classaction.ca

COURT APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

In September 2008, the plaintiffs commenced a class proceedingagainst Arctic Glacier, Arctic Glacier Inc., and certain officersand directors of Arctic Glacier in the Ontario Superior Court ofJustice. The class action arises out of Arctic Glacier'sannouncement of an investigation by the United States Departmentof Justice into anti-competitive conduct in the packaged iceindustry. Following that announcement, Arctic Glacier suspendedits distributions to its unit-holders, and the trading price ofthe units declined significantly. By order issued March 1, 2011,the Court certified the class action. The Defendants sought leaveto appeal the certification order and leave to appeal was grantedon February 1, 2012.

On February 22, 2012, Arctic Glacier and Arctic Glacier Inc.applied for protection from their creditors pursuant to theCompanies' Creditors Arrangements Act in the Court of Queen'sBench for Manitoba and pursuant to Chapter 15 of the United StatesBankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court of theDistrict of Delaware. Each of these Courts granted orders stayingall legal proceedings against Arctic Glacier and Arctic GlacierInc. for the purpose of permitting them to restructure theiraffairs. Those orders currently prohibit the commencement orprosecution against Arctic Glacier and Arctic Glacier Inc. andcertain of their current or former officers and directors. It isnot currently known when or if such stays of proceedings will belifted. Those proceedings may result in further orders of theRestructuring Courts compromising or extinguishing the claims ofClass Members.

On June 1, 2012, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement,dated April 25, 2012. The Settlement is a compromise of disputedclaims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or faulton the part of any of the Defendants, all of whom have denied, andcontinue to deny, the allegations against them.

The Settlement provides for the payment of CAD$13,750,000 in fulland final settlement of the claims of Class Members, includinglegal fees, disbursements, taxes and administration expenses inreturn for releases and a dismissal of the class action. TheDefendants, members of the immediate families of the IndividualDefendants, any officers, directors or employees of the IncomeFund or Arctic or any subsidiary of the Income Fund or Arctic, anyentity in respect of which any such person has a legal or de factocontrolling interest, and any legal representatives, heirs,successors or assigns of any such person or entity, are notpermitted to participate in the Settlement.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The Court has appointed NPT RicePoint as the Administrator of thisSettlement Agreement. The Administrator will oversee the claimsand opt-out processes and will distribute the Settlement Amount.

Those Class Members who wish to receive compensation from theSettlement Amount must mail or otherwise submit a completed ClaimForm and any supporting documents to the Administrator, no laterthan September 11, 2012, at the following address:

The Class Members who do not opt out and who file a valid claimwill be paid a pro rata share of the balance of the SettlementAmount after payment of fees, expenses, and taxes. The Long FormNotice contains the complete details of the process for filing aClaim Form and how the Settlement Amount will be distributed.

All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the SettlementAgreement unless they "opt out." This means that Class Memberswho do not opt out will not be able to bring or continue any otherclaim or legal proceeding against the Defendants, or any otherperson released by the Settlement Agreement in relation to thematters alleged in the class action. If you do not want to bebound by the Settlement Agreement you must opt out. Please notehowever, that by opting out you will be barred from making a claimand receiving compensation from the Settlement Amount.

If you wish to opt out you must submit a fully completed Opt-OutForm along with the documents identified therein to theAdministrator, no later than August 13, 2012. If you areconsidering opting out, you should have specific regard to theimpact of the orders which have been or may be made by theRestructuring Courts on your ability to pursue litigation againstthe Defendants in this action. Those orders may severely limit oreliminate your ability to commence or continue litigation againstthe Defendants named in this action.

For further information regarding the terms of the SettlementAgreement, the Plan of Allocation, filing a claim and/or optingout, or to obtain a Claim Form or request to opt out, visit theAdministrator's Web site: http://www.nptricepoint.comor contact the Administrator by calling 1-866-432-5534.

The law firm of Siskinds LLP is counsel to the Plaintiffs in theclass proceeding, and can be reached by telephone, toll free, at1-800-461-6166 ext. 2380, by e-mail at nicole.young@siskinds.comor on the internet at http://www.classaction.ca

Please do not contact the Court with inquiries about the classaction or the Settlement. All inquiries should be directed to theAdministrator or Siskinds LLP.

June 13, 2012

PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIOSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

ARTSQUEST: Sued Over Fraudulent Sale of Chinese Beer Steins-----------------------------------------------------------Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that in twofederal lawsuits, an employment complaint and a consumer classaction, a woman claims she was fired for complaining that heremployer sold $3 Chinese beer steins for $70, falsely claimingthey had been handcrafted in Germany.

Rebecca Stoneback filed a whistleblower complaint and a classaction against Artsquest, which describes itself as a promoter ofart events and art education in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley.

Ms. Stoneback says she became aware that Artsquest "wasfraudulently selling beer steins and stoneware mugs by claimingsame were manufactured . . . in Germany, when in fact such steinsand mugs were manufactured at a factory in China."

She says she "refused to sell the mugs and steins until defendantsproperly identified their origin."

Ms. Stoneback claims she was canned from her "instructor" positionor from a position stocking and selling merchandise "because sheopposed wrongdoing and because she refused to violate criminal andconsumer protection laws."

The steins at issue are called Muskifest steins and mugs, areference to Artsquest's decades-old, 10-day music festival indowntown Bethlehem, Pa., Ms. Stoneback says. The festivalattracts more than 1 million visitors annually and "is consideredto be the nation's largest non-gated music festival," Ms.Stoneback says in one complaint.

But she says she discovered that Artsquest bought the steins fromChina for $3 apiece, then sold them "for a near 2,500 percentprice increase," taking "a hefty profit of $67 per stein . . . foreach stein fraudulently sold."

"Prior to mid-March 2012, defendants purposefully preventedplaintiff (and presumably other employees) from seeing theshipping boxes in which the steins or mugs were shipped todefendants," the complaint states. "Instead, when a new shipmentarrived, the boxes were delivered to an off-site location,unpacked, and then placed in the backroom of the store. Plaintiffwould then typically remove the steins . . . from the backroom andplace them in the front of the store for sale."

The New 49'ers Inc., 16 miners and Northwest Mining suedCalifornia's Department of Fish and Game in a class action forinverse condemnation, in Siskiyou County Court.

Suction dredge miners use giant hoses to suck sand, mud and gravelfrom streambeds, mechanically "pan" it for gold, then spew thedisturbed water back into the stream. Environmentalists call itecologically harmful.

An environmental attorney called elements of the lawsuit "patentlyridiculous."

"The miners' loss of $500,000 per claim is highly speculative, andpatently ridiculous," Jonathan Evans, attorney and Toxics andEndangered Species Campaign Director for the Center for BiologicalDiversity told Courthouse News.

"There is no way the miners can determine the amount of mineralsunder our state waterways. The majority of suction dredge miningis done as a destructive hobby. A survey from the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game of suction dredge miners found thatonly 18 percent do it for full-time income. There's no reasonCalifornians should subsidize this polluting and destructivepractice."

The miners seek a writ of mandate vacating approval of the ban andthe findings that supported it, and the Final SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Review vacated and the regulations set aside,and Fish and Game ordered to keep issuing permits under theprevious suction-dredging regulations.

The miners, who say they have claims on federal land, call the banan unconstitutional taking, pre-empted by federal law, and say itviolates the California Environmental Quality Act.

The fees for suction-dredging permits do not cover the cost of thepermitting program, so the state ends up subsidizing the mining,according to an analysis of Assembly Bill 120.

But the miners claim that two California laws and a set ofregulations keep the class members from gold.

"There are extremely small-scale nonmotorized recreational miningactivities, including panning for gold, that remain lawful inCalifornia, but it is not possible to recover commerciallysignificant amounts of gold through such means," the miners say inthe complaint.

They claim California is violating their property rights anddenying them "all economically beneficial or productive use oftheir mining claims," which amounts to taking them for public use.

Mr. Evans disagrees.

"The state's rules do not say they can't mine their claims by lessdestructive means, such as panning for gold or hand mining," theattorney said. "No one in the environmental, tribal, or fisheriescommunity is claiming that miners should be barred from theirclaims, but they shouldn't receive a state subsidy to pollutewaterways, kill wildlife and destroy tribal resources by suctiondredge mining."

The complaint states: "A fundamental error, repeated throughoutthe FSEIR [final supplemental environmental impact review], isconfusing potential environmental impact with actual environmentalimpact. There is no shortage of interested parties eager to lodgetestimony with the department that all sorts of consequences mightor could result from suction dredge mining.

"The only potentially significant adverse impact from suctiondredge mining would arise if miners dredged into a nest (redd) offish eggs, were unable to stop in time (though underwater andobserving his or her nozzle closely), and thereafter sucked theeggs through the dredge, and this happened with sufficientfrequency to affect fish populations. Plaintiffs are unaware ofsuch an event ever occurring, in part because natural conditions(snow, ice and cold water) and prior regulations limited dredgingactivity when fish eggs were present."

Again, Mr. Evans disagrees.

"Regardless of whenever you are out there suction dredge mining itharms the environment," he said. "Whether you are actuallydestroying the redds and salmon eggs or not, you are stillsuspending mercury in the river. Anytime you are out theresuction dredge mining in active water bodies you're destroyingwildlife and water bodies."

He added: "Suction dredge mining has an incredibly harmful effecton California's water quality, wildlife, and cultural resources.It's time to end this destructive practice. The State WaterResources Control Board condemns the harmful effects on waterquality because it suspends toxic mercury into California's watersupplies and aquatic systems. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceopposes the harmful effects of suction dredge mining on amphibiansand fish. The state can't afford to subsidize this type ofpolluting river mining in an era of limited budgets and limitedwater supplies. It costs California over $1 million a year tosubsidize the suction dredge. There is absolutely no reason whyCalifornia should be subsidizing this type of destructiverecreational mining."

The plaintiffs are represented by James Buchal, with Murphy &Bucal, of Portland, Ore.

CANADA: Mississauga Councilors Unaware of Flooding Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Megan O'Toole, writing for National Post, reports that Mississaugacouncillors are stunned that city staff failed to promptly informthem of a C$200-million lawsuit targeting the municipality -- onlyrevealing the months-old litigation to members of council byhappenstance two weeks ago.

The lawsuit, which is aiming for class-action status, was launchedby representative plaintiffs Francesco and Katiana Panza, whoclaim damages for "negligence and breach of common law andstatutory duties of care" after dozens of residents experiencedflooding in and around their homes. Peel Region, the HaltonRegional Conservation Authority and the Environment Ministry arealso named as defendants.

Rainwater and sewage water has backed up onto residents'properties and into their basements on at least seven occasionssince the summer of 2009, the claim alleges, damaging homes andsending property values plummeting.

"The defendants, or any of them . . . deliberately and willfullyignored, discounted and otherwise disregarded the concerns beingexpressed to them by the plaintiffs and other class members," theclaim alleges.

None of the allegations have been tested in court, and spokesmenfor the city and Peel Region did not respond to interviewrequests. Spokesmen for the Environment Ministry and the HaltonRegional Conservation Authority declined to comment.

"As this relates to ongoing legal proceedings, it would not beappropriate to comment further," ministry spokeswoman Kate Jordansaid.

Mississauga Councillor Sue McFadden -- who has been providingregular updates to Ward 10 residents about actions the city hastaken to address the flooding problem, including cuttingvegetation along a local creek to improve water flow -- says shescheduled a meeting with city staff two weeks ago to discuss thestatus of a consultant's report into what caused the repeatedflooding. It was there that she learned, through an offhandcomment by an outside lawyer, of the C$200-million lawsuit filedin February.

She says she has now been effectively "gagged" from communicatingwith residents about the flooding issue, because she lives in theaffected community and is therefore in a conflict of interestbecause of the pending litigation.

COCA-COLA: Merchandisers Seek Class Certification-------------------------------------------------The employment attorneys at Bisnar | Chase, LLP and Arias Ozzello& Gignac LLP on June 12 filed a motion for class certificationagainst Coca-Cola on May 29, 2012 to certify a class of at least3,373 current and former Merchandisers for failing to providecompliant meal periods and failing to reimburse them for businessexpenses incurred during the course-and-scope of their employment.The hearing on the motion is set for July 2, 2012.

The case against Coca-Cola, which operates roughly 27 branchesthroughout the state of California, was brought in September 2011,in California state court in Los Angeles, but was removed tofederal court based on a motion filed by Coca-Cola under the ClassAction Fairness Act (CAFA).

The proposed Class plaintiffs seek to certify consists of: Allformer and current Merchandisers who worked for Coca-Cola in oneof its branches in the State of California during the periodbetween September 7, 2007 to the conclusion of this action. TheSubclasses plaintiffs seek to certify are, among others, thefollowing:

(a) Subclass 1: All Class Members who worked shifts of at leastsix hours during the Class Period whose time records show no mealperiod was taken [the "MISSED MEAL-PERIOD SUBCLASS"].

(b) Subclass 2: All Class Members who worked shifts of at leastsix hours during the Class Period whose time records show lessthan a 30-minute meal period [the "SHORT MEAL-PERIOD SUBCLASS"].

(c) Subclass 3: All Class Members who worked shifts of at leastsix hours during the Class Period whose time records show a mealperiod after the fifth hour of work [the "LATE MEAL-PERIODSUBCLASS"].

(d) Subclass 4: All Class Members who were not reimbursed for allwork-related non-commute mileage during the Class Period [the"NON-COMMUTE MILEAGE SUBCLASS"].

(e) Subclass 5: All Class Members, who qualified for commutemileage under Defendant's Mileage Reimbursement Policy andProcedure, but were not paid commute mileage during the ClassPeriod [the "COMMUTE MILEAGE SUBCLASS"].

"What differentiates this case from other class action wage-and-hour cases is that Coca-Cola's own records establishes itsliability," said Brian Chase, partner at Bisnar | Chase. "Coca-Cola recorded every incident of a non-compliant meal period,including missed-meal, short-meal or late meal periods. UnderCalifornia law, employers are required to pay premium wages whenan employee is not provided a meal period. Coca-Cola lacked apolicy of paying Merchandisers premium pay for meal periodviolations."

The California employment lawyers at Bisnar | Chase and AriasOzzello & Gignac LLP are seeking damages for premium wages formeal-period violations, unreimbursed expenses, and waiting timepenalties for failing to compensate former employees within theClass Period for these unpaid wages.

CORBIS CORP: Shirley Jones Fights Right Over Red-Carpet Photos--------------------------------------------------------------Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that ShirleyJones asked the United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit to overturn a ruling that Corbis, a stock photo Web site,has the right to license red-carpet images of her.

Ms. Jones filed a federal class action against Corbis Corp. in2010, claiming it had violated her common law and statutory rightsof publicity by exploiting her name, image and likeness in 10photos on its Web site.

But in May 2011, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson ruled thatMs. Jones had given her consent for Corbis to display and licensethe images because she knew it was customary for red-carpetphotographers to distribute such photos widely.

The 9th Circuit on June 7 heard arguments from Ms. Jones' attorneyArthur Gold, with Chicago law firm Gold & Coulson, and Corbis'attorney Laurence Pulgram, with Fenwick & West of San Francisco.

The hearing was consolidated to incorporate a similar class actionagainst Corbis by lead plaintiffs Anna Maria Alberghetti andBonnie Pointer of the Pointer Sisters.

Mr. Gold said that neither Ms. Jones' knowledge of red-carpetphotographers' practice of distributing images, nor Hollywoodcustom at such events implied her consent.

Under questioning from the judges, Mr. Gold made a distinctionbetween images Corbis distributed to the media and those soldcommercially.

Ms. Jones "spent her lifetime" developing her persona and only shecould exploit her image for commercial use, even if a photographerwas the owner of a copyrighted image in which she appeared,Mr. Gold argued.

But Mr. Pulgram said the images of Ms. Jones were pre-empted bythe Copyright Act, because all Corbis did was display and licensethem. To rule otherwise would set a "dangerous" precedent whichwould not only harm the photo-licensing industry but the subjectsof the photos, the attorney said.

"If it were to become the case that photographers could notdisplay images without that display becoming violation of theright of publicity, this would give each person depicted in theimage a veto over whether or not the public would ever get accessto that image," Mr. Pulgram said.

The attorney also claimed that Ms. Jones was not harmedeconomically by the display of licensed images.

"In fact, if anything, she probably has an economic enhancementbecause she might get a license out of it from a commercial user,"Mr. Pulgram said.

In rebuttal, Mr. Gold said that Corbis hurt his clients' abilityto make money from images they had spent years building.

Ms. Jones, 78, starred in several Hollywood musicals, including"Oklahoma" and "The Music Man," and the television sitcom "ThePartridge Family." She won an Academy Award for best supportingactress for her role as a prostitute in the 1960 drama, "ElmerGantry."

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on itsmotion to dismiss a consolidated putative securities class actionlawsuit, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2012.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captionedJimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filedin the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons whoacquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,2007 through August 19, 2010, against the Company and JackMassimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all ofwhom are current or former officers of the Company. The complaintalleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, thedefendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed todisclose certain material facts about the condition of theCompany's business and prospects during the putative class period,causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock atartificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs further claim thatMessrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts indamages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as otherrelief. On October 29, 2010, another putative class actioncomplaint captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.,et al. was filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matterdescribed above in the U.S. District Court for the CentralDistrict of California. The Totten complaint is substantivelyidentical to the Karam complaint. Several other plaintiffsintervened in the lawsuit and petitioned the Court to appoint themto be the lead plaintiffs. On March 30, 2011, the Court appointedthe Wyoming Retirement System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaalen Technieklead as lead plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman &Dowd LLP as counsel for lead plaintiffs, in the consolidatedaction. Lead plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amendedconsolidated complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss thesecond amended consolidated complaint. On January 30, 2012, theU.S. District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, andgave the plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint. OnFebruary 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint(the "TAC") in U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 theCompany and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intendsto defend itself and its current and former officers vigorously.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Still Pending----------------------------------------------------------Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s appeal from a state court order in aputative class action demand in arbitration captioned Rivera v.Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian Colleges, Inc., remainspending, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2012.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitrationcaptioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and CorinthianColleges, Inc. was filed with the American ArbitrationAssociation. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVACstudents from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus. Thearbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business andProfessions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentionaldeceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjustenrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies andmisrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVACstudents in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oaklandcampuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery ofcompensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution andattorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVACprograms at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during itsownership of that campus. The arbitrator ruled that thearbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreementis not susceptible to class-wide resolution. On November 22, 2011,a California state court judge refused to confirm the arbitrator'sclause construction decision and remanded the matter to thearbitrator for further consideration. The Company has appealed thestate court order. The Company believes the complaint is withoutmerit and intends to vigorously defend itself against theseallegations.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Settles Claims in "Daniels" Suit in Dallas---------------------------------------------------------------Corinthian Colleges, Inc., settled claims in the petitioncaptioned Miesha Daniels, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., RhodesBusiness Group, Inc., and Corinthian Colleges, Inc., in Dallas,Texas, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2012.

On September 4, 2009, the Company was served with a petition filedin Dallas County District Court entitled Miesha Daniels, et al. v.Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Rhodes Business Group, Inc., and CorinthianColleges, Inc. The petition named thirteen former students ofthree Dallas-area Everest campuses as plaintiffs and did not seekcertification as a class action. The plaintiffs alleged violationsof Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act,breach of contract and fraud related to alleged pre-enrollmentrepresentations regarding credit transfer, quality of educationand outcomes. The plaintiffs sought recovery of compensatory andexemplary damages and attorneys' fees. The action in Dallas CountyDistrict Court was ordered to arbitration, where individualarbitration demands were filed. Following losses on tenarbitration awards, the plaintiffs' attorneys informed the Companythey no longer represented a total of approximately one-hundred-and-fifty current or former students (as they had previously toldthe Company), but they reduced their total client count tothirteen students, upon whose behalf they filed arbitrationdemands, bringing the total demands filed to those of the originalthirteen plaintiffs, plus an additional eleven individual students(other previously filed arbitration demands were administrativelydismissed). Of the first eleven cases in which arbitration awardshave been returned, the Company received a complete defenseverdict in ten cases and the plaintiff received an immaterialarbitration award in the other case. Consistent with theCompany's view that these arbitration claims were without merit,the Company resolved the remaining claims for an immaterialamount. Separately, the Company also settled its defamation andtheft of trade secrets cases against the plaintiffs' attorney tothe satisfaction of the parties.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Awaits Ruling on appeal in "Reed" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its appealfiled in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Reed, anindividual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situatedv. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian Colleges,Inc., according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2012.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captionedReed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and CorinthianColleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,Texas. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of the Company. Plaintiff purports to be a formerstudent in the Company's Everest University Online operations. Thecomplaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of EverestUniversity Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or anexemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies tooffer online courses in the State of Texas and to register itsadmissions representatives with the State of Texas. The plaintiffseeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted toreceive distance education from Everest University Online whileresiding in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctiverelief, cost of suit, and such other relief as the court deemsproper. On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to bindingarbitration, and the plaintiff has filed a putative class actiondemand in arbitration. The arbitrator has ruled that thearbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreementis susceptible to class-wide resolution, but has not yet addressedwhether a class should be certified. The Company has appealed theclause-construction decision and the case has been stayed pendingthe appeal. On March 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for theFifth Circuit heard oral arguments in this matter. The Companybelieves the complaint is without merit and intends to defenditself and its subsidiary vigorously.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration Hearings in "Montgomery" Suit Set------------------------------------------------------------------Individual arbitration hearings in a putative class action lawsuitcaptioned Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves andall others similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. andCorinthian Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and OlympiaCollege, are scheduled to commence during the Company's fiscalquarter ending June 30, 2012, the Company disclosed in its May 4,2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captionedAlisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and CorinthianSchools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filedin the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Corinthian Schools,Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Plaintiffs werethirty-three individuals who purported to be current and/or formerstudents of the Company's Medical Assistant Program at the EverestCollege campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois. The complaintalleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois ConsumerFraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust enrichment,all related to alleged deficiencies and misrepresentationsregarding the Company's medical assisting program at theMerrionette Park campus. The plaintiffs sought to certify a classcomposed of all persons who enrolled in the Company's MedicalAssisting program at the Everest College Merrionette Park campusduring the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit, andsought actual and compensatory damages on behalf of such persons,costs and attorneys' fees, punitive damages, disgorgement andrestitution of wrongful profits, revenue and benefits to theextent deemed appropriate by the court, and such other relief asthe court deemed proper. The Company removed the case to federalcourt and moved to compel individual arbitrations, which the courtgranted. Thirty-one plaintiffs have now filed individual demandsin arbitration. Individual arbitration hearings are scheduled tocommence during the Company's fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012.The Company believes these matters are without merit and intendsto defend itself and its subsidiary vigorously.

DELTA PETROLEUM: Federman Sherwood Files Class Action-----------------------------------------------------On June 12, 2012, Federman & Sherwood, a law firm representinginvestors nationwide, filed a class action lawsuit in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Colorado againstcertain, current and/or former officers and directors of DeltaPetroleum, Inc., alleging violations of federal securities lawsSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and SECRule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, which includesallegations of issuing a series of material or falsemisrepresentations to the market which had the effect ofartificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,which Federman & Sherwood has now expanded to include allshareholders who purchased common stock from March 11, 2010through November 9, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all DeltaPetroleum, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during theexpanded Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class. Youmay move the Court no later than Monday, June 18, 2012 to serve asa lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to doso, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to thePrivate Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information andparticipate in this or any other securities litigation, or shouldyou have any questions or concerns regarding this notice orpreservation of your rights, please contact:

Mr. Stern and co-defendants are accused of violating federal laborlaws when they fired hundreds of workers in late 2010 withoutgiving them adequate notice as required by law.

In the suit, the ex-employees of the Stern's law office, P.A.,DJSP Enterprises, Inc., and affiliated foreclosure processingbusinesses allege the companies failed to provide 60 days advancenotice mandated by the Worker Adjustment and RetrainingNotification Act.

In March, the former employees agreed to a settlement, which wasto establish a $500,000 fund to provide them with pro rata wages.

"Given the challenges presented by the defendants' financialcircumstances, we're pleased to have obtained such meaningfulrelief for the Class," Steven Jaffe, an attorney for the employeessaid in a statement on June 12.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of "Freudenberg" Suit Deal-------------------------------------------------------------E*TRADE Financial Corporation is awaiting court approval of asettlement entered in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed byLarry Freudenberg, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violationsof the federal securities laws was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York against theCompany and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, respectively,by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of otherssimilarly situated (the "Freudenberg Action"). On July 17, 2008,the trial court consolidated this action with four other purportedclass actions, all of which were filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York and whichwere based on the same facts and circumstances. On January 16,2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended class actioncomplaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the Company'sformer Capital Markets Division President, as a defendant.Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value of theCompany's stock between April 19, 2006 and November 9, 2007 wasartificially inflated because the defendants issued materiallyfalse and misleading statements and failed to disclose that theCompany was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in itsmortgage and home equity portfolios; failed to timely record animpairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios; materiallyovervalued its securities portfolio, which included assets backedby mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonablebasis for the positive statements made about the Company'searnings and prospects. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in anamount to be proven at trial, including interest and attorneys'fees and costs. The parties entered into a Memorandum ofUnderstanding ("MOU") on December 17, 2011 to settle theseconsolidated actions. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company andits insurance carriers will pay $79.0 million in return for fullreleases. Approximately $10.8 million of the total settlementfigure will be paid by the Company, and was expensed in the yearended December 31, 2011. This settlement is subject to Courtapproval and it has not yet been finalized. The defendantscontinue to deny that they committed any violations of law orbreached any fiduciary duty to shareholders.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed "Oughtred" Suit in Feb.----------------------------------------------------------A federal court in New York dismissed a class action complaintfiled by John W. Oughtred against E*TRADE Financial Corporation,according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2012.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations ofthe federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on hisown behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkagainst the Company. Plaintiff contends, among other things, thatthe Company committed various sales practice violations in thesale of certain auction rate securities to investors between April2, 2003, and February 13, 2008 by allegedly misrepresenting thatthese securities were highly liquid and safe investments for shortterm investing. On December 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their firstamended class action complaint. Defendants filed their pendingmotion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on February 5,2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completedon April 15, 2009. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amountto be proven at trial, or, in the alternative, rescission ofauction rate securities purchases, plus interest and attorneys'fees and costs. On March 18, 2010, the District Court dismissedthe complaint without prejudice. On April 22, 2010, Plaintiffsamended their complaint. The Company has moved to dismiss theamended complaint. By an Order dated March 31, 2011, the Courtgranted the Company's motion and dismissed the action withprejudice. On May 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal tothe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiffs filedtheir brief on August 12, 2011. The Company's responsive brief wasfiled October 26, 2011. Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed onNovember 21, 2011. Prior to any hearings on the appeal, the leadplaintiffs in this action accepted the terms of the Purchase Offerin connection with the North American Securities AdministratorsAssociation ("NASAA") settlement, and this class action wasdismissed with prejudice in February 2012.

On July 21, 2010, the Colorado Division of Securities filed anadministrative complaint in the Colorado Office of AdministrativeCourts against E*TRADE Securities LLC based upon purchases ofauction rate securities through E*TRADE Securities LLC by Coloradoresidents. On October 19, 2011, E*TRADE Securities LLC and theColorado Division of Securities reached an agreement in principleto settle the Colorado proceeding whereby E*TRADE Securities LLCwill offer to purchase auction rate securities held by Coloradocustomers who found themselves unable to sell their securitiesafter those securities had been frozen in the broader auction ratesecurities market. The agreement in principle also included anagreement with the NASAA whereby E*TRADE Securities LLC will offerto purchase auction rate securities purchased through E*TRADESecurities LLC on a nationwide basis and pay a $5 million penaltyto be allocated among 48 states and the District of Columbia,Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands but exclusive of North Carolinaand South Carolina with whom E*TRADE Securities LLC previously hadreached separate settlements. Under the agreement in principleeach state will receive its allocated share of the $5 millionpenalty pursuant to administrative consent cease and desist ordersto be entered into by each state. A Consent Order memorializingthe agreement in principle as it related to Colorado customers wasentered by the Colorado Securities Commissioner on November 16,2011, and amended on November 23, 2011, whereby E*TRADE SecuritiesLLC, without admitting or denying the underlying allegations,agreed to pay an administrative penalty to Colorado of $84,202,which amount constituted Colorado's share of the total NASAA statesettlement amount of $5 million, and to reimburse the ColoradoDivision of Securities' costs associated with the administrativeaction in the amount of $596,580. Under the terms of the ConsentOrder, E*TRADE Securities LLC will offer to purchase (or offer toarrange a third party to purchase), at par plus accrued and unpaiddividends and interest, from eligible investors nationwide theirauction rate securities purchased through E*TRADE Securities LLC,or through an entity acquired by the Company on or before February13, 2008, if such auction rate securities have failed at auctionat least once since February 13, 2008 ("the Purchase Offer").E*TRADE Securities LLC also agreed to identify eligible investorswho purchased auction rate securities through E*TRADE SecuritiesLLC on or before February 13, 2008, and sold those securitiesbelow par between February 13, 2008, and November 16, 2011, and toreimburse those sellers the difference between par value and theactual sales price plus reasonable interest. E*TRADE SecuritiesLLC agreed to hold open the Purchase Offer until May 15, 2012, andto various other undertakings set forth in the Consent Order,including the establishment of a dedicated toll-free telephoneassistance line and website to provide information and to respondto questions regarding the Consent Order. As of March 31, 2012,the total amount of auction rate securities held by Coloradocustomers was approximately $50,000 and the total amount ofauction rate securities held by E*TRADE Securities LLC customersnationwide (including Colorado customers) was approximately $17.7million. The Company recorded a reserve of $48 million during theyear ended December 31, 2011. The reserve represented theCompany's estimate of the current fair value relative to par valueof auction rate securities held by E*TRADE Securities LLCcustomers, as well as former customers who purchased auction ratesecurities through E*TRADE Securities LLC and are covered by theConsent Order. The agreement includes the resolution of allmaterial individual auction rate securities arbitrations andlitigations. The reserve also includes penalties and otherestimated settlement costs.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit----------------------------------------------------E*TRADE Financial Corporation continues to defend itself from aclass action lawsuit filed by Joseph Roling, according to theCompany's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,2012.

On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia against E*TRADE Securities LLC by Joseph Roling on hisown behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Thelead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfullycharged and collected certain account activity fees from itscustomers. Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class,asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation ofCalifornia Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable andinjunctive relief for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulentpractices under California's Unfair Competition Law, CaliforniaBusiness and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq. The plaintiffseeks, among other things, certification of the class action onbehalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs, unspecifieddamages and restitution of amounts allegedly wrongfully collectedby E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys' fees and expenses andinjunctive relief. The Company moved to transfer venue on the caseto the Southern District of New York; that motion was denied. TheCourt granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part and deniedthe motion to dismiss in part. The Court bifurcated discovery topermit initial discovery on individual claims and classcertification. Following preliminary discovery, Plaintiffs movedto amend their verified complaint for a second time, to assert newallegations and to add a plaintiff. The Company filed itsopposition to this motion on December 27, 2011. On March 27, 2012,the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment andgranted the Company's motion to dismiss. However, the Courtallowed plaintiffs to seek a new class representative andpermitted limited discovery on a narrow issue as to when the feeincrease was posted on the Company?s website in 2005. The Companyintends to vigorously defend itself against the remaining claimsin this action.

FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Ordered to Turn Over Intern Contact Information----------------------------------------------------------------Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federaljudge on June 12 ordered Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. to providetwo former interns who are pursuing a putative class actionagainst the company for misclassifying workers as interns withcontact information for a set of the company's other interns.

Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman, who worked as unpaid interns onthe set of the Oscar-nominated film "Black Swan," sued the filmproduction studio in September 2011, claiming that the company hadviolated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Gamestop employees alleged in the class action Complaint theywere required to clock out of Gamestop's timekeeping system andcontinue working off the clock to fulfill their daily tasks.Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Gamestop "consistentlydoes not allocate enough labor hours such that there is not enoughtime for the employees to complete their required duties withinthe allocated labor hours." As a result, the Complaint claimsthat these employees were systematically denied compensation forthe actual number of hours worked.

Furthermore, the Complaint asserts that the Gamestop employeeswere regularly denied meal and rest breaks, and there was nopolicy in place to compensate employees for missed meal or restbreaks. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, "Plaintiff andCalifornia Class Members are required by [Gamestop] to work alone,or with an employee that cannot be left alone in [a Gamestop]store, for the first five (5) hours of their scheduled shift."

The managing partner of the law firm, Norman B. Blumenthal, stated"companies push for off-the-clock work because it's an easy way toenhance corporate profits. This is done at the expense of theemployee and it is illegal."

The employment law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik representmany California workers in class action lawsuits against theircurrent and/or former employers for various wage and hourviolations.

HUANG SHUN: Faces Class Action for Sexual Harassment----------------------------------------------------Purna Nemani at Courthouse News Service reports that a waitressclaims in a federal class action that her bosses forced her andother Chinese women into prostitution and threatened to kill herfamily when she reported it.

Dong Jie Song sued Huang Shun Corp. for sexual harassment andcivil rights violations in this U.S. territory, whose governmentalstatus is similar to Puerto Rico's. Businesses on the chain of 15Pacific islands north of Guam hire immigrant contract workers fromAsia and other Micronesian islands.

Ms. Song claims she was hired as a karaoke waitress but was"coerced" into working as a prostitute.

"Although there were other karaoke waitresses, only the Chinesewaitresses were coerced to work as prostitutes," the complaintstates.

"Defendant paid Chinese employees less than employees of othernational origins.

For example, Filipino employees were paid bi-weekly and minimumwage, as well as overtime; whereas Chinese employees were paidonce a month without overtime or minimum wage. Chinese waitresseswere only paid commission; whereas Filipina waitresses were paidhourly."

Ms. Song adds that "Chinese employees were expected to workunlimited hours."

Chinese immigrant workers in the South Pacific are subjected tofrequent harassment, physical attacks and employmentdiscrimination, one such worker told Courthouse News in aninterview. This woman, who now works legally in the UnitedStates, said her family, and other Chinese immigrants in thePhilippines, were attacked during economic hard times "becauseChinese are such hard workers."

In her complaint, Ms. Song states: "Defendant subjected Chineseemployees to beatings and verbal abuse, whereas non-Chineseworkers were not."

She claims the abuse became physical, and that "Song gave astatement and was prepared to testify as a witness in support of aChinese co-worker who filed a case regarding abuse againstdefendant."

The complaint continues: "Song assisted three of her Chinese co-workers who filed a case against defendant complaining of abuseand unpaid wages.

"In retaliation, defendant told her and her Chinese co-workersthat they would not be able to survive and get food and hethreatened to kill them on or about September 17, 2009.

"In retaliation, defendant also beat up one of the co-workers andthreatened to kill Song's family.

"Song was constructively discharged on September 22, 2009 becauseshe complained and testified to authorities about the abuse."

HULU: Judge Dismisses Most of Claims in VPPA Class Action---------------------------------------------------------Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federalmagistrate judge tossed most claims from a class that said Huluillegally discloses their viewing data to third parties.

In their amended class action complaint, six Hulu subscribers saidthe video site "repurposed" its browser cache so a marketinganalyst service called KISSmetrics could store their private data.

"Hulu's online privacy policy is misleading in that it does notdisclose its use of aggressive, rogue exploits of plaintiffs' andclass members' computer software to engage in widespread trackingand information sharing," the complaint states.

The class claims that Hulu's actions "are so outside theboundaries of reasonable expectations that even industry expertshad not previously observed these exploits 'in the wild,' that is,in actual use on websites available to the public."

The class claimed they suffered losses from the illegal dataexploitation because their personal information has economicvalue.

Hulu sought dismissal, which Magistrate Judge Laurel Beelerlargely granted in an order on June 11.

Much of the dispute centered on the federal Video PrivacyProtection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988 after a Washington, D.C.,newspaper published the video rental history of Supreme Courtnominee Robert Bork.

In a filing in May, Hulu claimed that the class had abandoned sixof its seven claims dealing with privacy, computer fraud andnegligence, and that the court should dismiss those claims withprejudice.

The other claim under the VPPA should be dismissed for a number ofreasons, O'Melveny & Myers attorney Randall Edwards wrote. Hesaid the plaintiffs cannot prove injury and thus cannot establishstanding, because they have not explained which videos theywatched, or how their information was disclosed to third parties.

The VPPA permits disclosure to third parties as an "ordinarycourse of business," the brief states.

Judge Beeler deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss the VPPAclaim, to determine if the class has standing under that law.

Judge Beeler found the plaintiffs had proved they had standing tosue, but Hulu argued that the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v.First American Corporation will resolve the issue in its favor.

In Edwards, the Supreme Court considered whether a purchaser ofreal estate settlement services had standing to sue under ArticleIII of the Constitution. The Court heard arguments in the case inNovember 2011.

Judge Beeler ordered Hulu to submit a supplemental brief by July19, and the class to submit a response by Aug. 2.

She scheduled more arguments for Aug. 23, and gave the parties theoption to alter the schedule depending on the timing of theEdwards ruling.

A copy of the Order Dismissing Claims Two Through Seven, OrderingFurther Briefing on Standing Only, and Setting Further Hearing inIn Re Hulu Privacy Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-03764 (N.D. Calif.),is available at:

ILLINOIS: GOP Activists Mull Class Action-----------------------------------------Chicago Now reports that GOP activists say they will file a legalchallenge to the Illinois Election Code, contending it violatesthe equal protection of Republican voters and denies them theright to vote for their party leadership.

"Illinois election law treats Republican and Democrat votersdifferently," says longtime GOP activist William J. Kelly. "Whyis that Democrat primary voters directly elect their partyleadership, but Republican voters do not? With this lawsuit, weare going to challenge the constitutionality of that law."

Under 10 ILCS 5/7-8, the Illinois Republican Party is currentlyrun by a 19-member State Central Committee, one member from eachof Illinois' congressional districts -- none of whom are directlyelected.

But Mr. Kelly says that, in the late 1980s, two party bosses,Republican Gov. James Thompson and party chair Al Jourdanengineered a sudden change to the Illinois election code toconsolidate their power, stripping GOP voters of the right to votefor their party leadership. Illinois Republicans had that rightfor more than a century.

Conservatives argue that this has resulted in a lack of anyaccountability to GOP primary voters and party corruption.

To date, state GOP bosses have successfully thwarted any attemptto return to direct elections both legislatively with the passageof SB600 and SB35 and, most recently, at the Illinois RepublicanConvention.

At the Illinois Republican convention last week, state GOP leadersin an unelected 11-7 committee decision determined that delegateswould not be permitted a floor vote on "direct elections" -- amove that would have restored voting rights to the Republicanelectorate.

Mr. Kelly points out that convention rules are determined byunelected party representatives and committee members are alsoappointed by unelected party officials -- which bolsters the legalargument to restore equal treatment of Republican voters in thepolitical process.

Republican voters have also complained that they were denieddelegate credentials and conservatives are now questioning thevalidity of the convention proceedings in general.

"In 1724, Catholics in Ireland were denied the right to vote.Prior to 1870, Black Americans were denied the right to vote.American women marched in the streets for decades for the right tovote," says Mr. Kelly. "But in 2012, Illinois Republicans do nothave the right to vote for their party leadership.

Mr. Kelly was involved with another federal legal challenge tovoting rights. In 1995, his political action committee filed alawsuit against the First and Fourth Congressional Districts,charging that they were gerrymandered and unconstitutional andreached the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We lost 6-3 in that decision," said Mr. Kelly of that suit. "Butwe fought. Hopefully, we will have better luck this time around.The law is definitely on our side."

If you are a Republican voter and would like to join the classaction lawsuit, e-mail williamjpkelly@gmail.com

LINCOLN COUNTY, WA: Employees File Wage Class Action----------------------------------------------------Northwest Cable News reports that Lincoln County employees saythey're being cheated out of wages. On June 12, they filled amillion dollar class action lawsuit against the county.

Local Attorney Nick Kovarik is representing the Lincoln Countyworkers and says, "This is the first time the government hasblatantly violated Washington's minimum wage law."

Mr. Kovarik says the rock crushers pick-up work vehicles at thecounty shed in Davenport, then drive to quarries miles away. Thedrive time is excluded from their hourly wage. "An hour and ten aday that they're not getting paid for."

Workers do get a monthly payment of 150 dollars for travel timebut it doesn't add up to what they'd make hourly. Mr. Kovarikcalls it blatantly illegal. "The government cannot use cheatingworkers out of their wages to make up for budget shortfalls.There are other ways to do it than make these hard workingcitizens not got paid minimum wage and not get paid overtimefrankly it's ridiculous."

The claim is for $500,000 in missed wages, but it doubles toaround a million when the damages and attorneys fees are included.

The public works director and county commissioners declined tocomment about the suit until they had more time to read thecomplaint.

MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class actionlawsuit in the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts against ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. on behalfof investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stockof the Company during the period from September 26, 2007 throughJune 8, 2012. The complaint brings forth claims for violations ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ModusLink provides supply chain management services and solutions.On June 11, 2012, the Company announced that it would need torestate financial results going back to 2007 and that its AuditCommittee investigation found that certain client contracts wereconsistently misaligned with the Company's practice of retainingvolume discounts. Additionally, the Committee found instanceswhere vendor costs incurred were marked up to clients inconsistentwith contracts.

Concurrently with these stunning announcements, the Company alsodisclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had launchedan inquiry into these matters, and that ModusLink's President andChief Executive Officer, Defendant Joseph C. Lawler, wasimmediately resigning from his positions with ModusLink and theCompany's Board of Directors. In addition, the Company alsoannounced the immediate departure of William R. McLennan,President, Global Operations for ModusLink.

In reaction to the Company's announcements, ModusLink's stockprice plunged 34.74% to close at $2.78 on June 11, 2012.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class actionat http://www.saxenawhite.comIf you purchased ModusLink stock between September 26, 2007 andJune 8, 2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc Groblerat Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased ModusLink common stock during the Class Period ofSeptember 26, 2007 through June 8, 2012, inclusive, and wish toapply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on yourbehalf must be filed with the Court no later than August 11, 2012.You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regardingthe appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the classaction. Please note that you may also retain counsel of yourchoice and need not take any action at this time to be a classmember.

OGLETREE DEAKINS: Maricopa County Files Class Action Over Billing-----------------------------------------------------------------Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for The ABA Journal, reports thatMaricopa County has taken a new tack in its billing dispute withOgletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart.

A counterclaim filed by the county is a would-be class actionfiled on behalf of any public sector clients that have beenoverbilled by the firm. According to the countersuit, the countyhas identified 36 instances in which Ogletree classifiednonattorney law grads as associates for billing purposes. Thecountersuit cites the county's belief -- without detailing anyspecific evidence -- that Ogletree has "billed all of its publicsector clients in a similar fashion."

"It appears that Ogletree's practice, nationwide, is to enternonattorneys into its personnel database under the classificationof 'associate' when they begin work following law school, butbefore they have passed the bar, and before they become admittedto practice law," the suit says.

The counterclaim also accuses Ogletree of funneling some of itslegal work to 10 subcontractor law firms that sometimes billed atrates surpassing the amounts allowed in Ogletree's contract withthe county.

The class action claims fraud and breach of contract. MaricopaCounty also alleges breach of fiduciary duty in a portion of thecountersuit dealing with its own claims.

Ogletree has billed the county about $5 million for its legal workfrom 2007 to 2010, including work done on behalf of Sheriff JoeArpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas; the county haspaid about $4 million.

Ogletree recently settled a suit claiming the county defamed it ina termination letter alleging that the firm possibly inflated itslegal bills. After dropping the suit, Ogletree refunded $51,000to the county and admitted it had charged attorney rates for anemployee who had not yet received her law license, according toprior coverage. Ogletree blamed the overcharge on a codingmistake.

The counterclaim alleges Ogletree also billed the county for asecond law grad who had not yet passed the bar.

According to the counterclaim, Ogletree did not include thecharges that were subject to the refund on documents that itturned over to the county. The counterclaim says Ogletree hasfailed to cooperate in an audit despite a ruling requiring it toturn over nonprivileged information.

"When the county has communicated with Ogletree that documentsthat it provided were incomplete and/or false," the counterclaimsays, "Ogletree has, through its counsel, John Doran, respondedthat the county was 'jousting at windmills' and that the[county's] concerns were 'all foam and no beer.'"

Mr. Doran, a partner at Sherman & Howard in Phoenix, isrepresenting Ogletree in all its disputes with the county. In aninterview with the ABA Journal, he calls the class actioncounterclaim "truly frivolous," "futile," a "litigation stunt,""preposterous" and "the most bizarre class action in history."

Mr. Doran says Ogletree voluntarily paid Maricopa County for themisclassified law grad "even though the county still owes usalmost a million dollars," and the firm offered to reimburse thecounty if it found any other errors. Rather than asking foradditional reimbursement because of the second misclassifiedlawyer, he said, the county chose to file "a truly frivolous classaction."

"We have made clear to the county that these were inadvertent," hesaid of the mischaracterized law grads. "It is not a practice, itis not a policy, it is not a procedure. It is a coding error."

Mr. Doran said he has worked at other large law firms and it is acommon practice to bill unlicensed law grads as associates. Theissue in the Maricopa County case, he said, is whether suchbilling violates the contract.

Mr. Doran also said Ogletree did nothing wrong when it hiredsubcontractor law firms because Maricopa County approved theengagements and the billing rates.

Asked for a possible motive for the class action, Mr. Doran saidhe had to be cautious in his response, and then listed "componentsthat go to motivation." One component, he said, is that thecounty's lawyers -- David Selden and Julie Pace -- are formerOgletree partners, "an awkward dynamic." Another component, hesaid, was that the county represented officials and departmentsadverse to the county, including the sheriff's and countyattorney's office. There was "bitter internecine warfare" betweenthe county and those offices even before Ogletree was hired, hesaid.

"I think this class action is futile on a dozen different levels,"Mr. Doran told the ABA Journal. "They're not going to getanything out of the class action. It is simply another litigationstunt, and we've seen lots of litigation stunts from the county."

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Penn.----------------------------------------------------------An investor in NASDAQ:ORRF shares filed a lawsuit in the U.S.District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania againstOrrstown Financial Services over alleged Violations of FederalSecurities Laws in connection with certain financial statements.

Investors who purchased Orrstown Financial Services (NASDAQ:ORRF)securities pursuant and/or traceable to its Registration Statementand Prospectus issued in connection with its offering of commonstock on March 24, 2010, and/or purchased Orrstown FinancialServices (NASDAQ:ORRF) securities on the open market between March24, 2010 and October 27, 2011, have certain options and there arestrict and short deadlines running. Deadline: July 24, 2012.NASDAQ:ORRF investors should contact the Shareholders Foundationat mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that defendantsviolated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SecuritiesAct of 1933. Specifically the plaintiff alleges that theCompany's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued inconnection with its offering of common stock on March 24, 2010 forthe March 2010 Offering were allegedly negligently prepared andallegedly failed to disclose material information about OrrstownFinancial Services' loan portfolio, underwriting practices, andinternal controls.

In October 2011, Orrstown Financial Services reported itsfinancial results for the third quarter of 2011. Among otherthings, Orrstown Financial Services, also said that the FederalReserve Bank of Philadelphia, one of the Bank's primaryregulators, refused to authorize Orrstown's requested declarationof quarterly dividends.

According to the complaint, The Federal Reserve took this step toprevent the Company from engaging in an unsafe and unsound bankingpractice which would further deplete the Company's capital base.Furthermore, Orrstown Financial Services disclosed that it had$9.4 million in charge-offs for the third quarter of 2011, andthat the Company faced "decreases in asset quality ratios,including elevated levels of nonaccrual loans, restructured loansand delinquencies."

Orrstown Financial Services' Net Income of $16.58 million for 2010turned into a Net Loss of $31.96 million in 2011.

Shares of Orrstown Financial Services (NASDAQ:ORRF) fell from over$28 in April 2011 to as low as almost $8 in November 2011 andclosed on June 12, 2012, NASDAQ:ORRF closed at $7.75 per share.

Those who purchased Orrstown Financial Services (NASDAQ:ORRF)securities pursuant and/or traceable to its Registration Statementand Prospectus issued in connection with its offering of commonstock on March 24, 2010, and/or those who purchased OrrstownFinancial Services (NASDAQ:ORRF) securities on the open marketbetween March 24, 2010 and October 27, 2011, have certain optionsand there are strict and short deadlines running. Deadline:July 24, 2012. NASDAQ:ORRF investors should contact theShareholders Foundation.

SUN VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Golf Club Membership--------------------------------------------------------Greg Moore, writing for Idaho Mountain Express, reports that aclass-action suit has been filed against Sun Valley Co. over itsdecision last year to open its recently acquired Elkhorn golfcourse to lodging guests. The course had been part of a privateclub.

Two Ketchum couples, Harold and Penelope Coe and Alan and WendyPesky, filed the suit in 5th District Court on May 31 on behalf ofeveryone who bought Elkhorn Golf Club memberships in 2003-04, whenthe course was bought by CG-Elkhorn Golf, and remained membersuntil about 2011. The complaint states that that class includesat least 100 people.

The complaint contends that CG-Elkhorn recruited potential memberswith a promise that it would maintain the course as a members-onlyclub, and that if the club were ever sold, the buyer would taketitle subject to a "membership plan." According to the complaint,CG-Elkhorn used the slogan "Privacy. Privilege. Perfection."The complaint states that the club began construction ofcondominiums and a clubhouse, as promised, but couldn't sell allthe condos and lacked the funds needed to maintain the golfcourse. Sun Valley Co. bought the course in July 2011.

In an interview, plaintiffs' attorney Ed Lawson said CG-Elkhorn'scontract with the members was legally passed on to Sun Valley Co.when it acquired title to the property.

According to the complaint, Sun Valley Co. told club membersduring a meeting on July 18, 2011, that it would open the courseto guests at the Sun Valley Lodge. A Sun Valley representativeinformed them that only 6,400 rounds were played on the Elkhorncourse annually, while about 20,000 were played on the Sun Valleycourse.

The complaint states that Sun Valley Co. informed plaintiffs in aletter dated Jan. 3, 2012, that it had changed its position andwould operate the Elkhorn course as a semi-private club. By then,the plaintiffs had joined the Valley Club, the complaint states.The suit seeks an unspecified amount n damages.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judge Cuts Stueve Siegel's Attorney Fees----------------------------------------------------------Paul Koepp, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports thatan appeals court on June 12 cut in half Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP'sattorney fees to just more than $3 million in a class-actionlawsuit.

The Kansas City firm represented plaintiffs who sued VolkswagenGroup of America Inc. in Jackson County Circuit Court in 2005 fordefective window regulators on certain models. The case settledin May 2010, giving each Missouri class member $75 plus repaircosts.

Only 177 of more than 22,000 class members submitted claims,yielding a total payout of $125,261.

The trial court awarded Stueve Siegel $6,174,640 in fees for workbilled as high as $650 an hour, plus expenses of $550,000.

The amount of fees was determined in part by the potential benefitto class members, calculated at $23 million. In its rulingTuesday, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, said thefee award also should take into account the actual payout becauseonly a fraction of any class is likely to make a claim.

Stueve Siegel had a similar case against Volkswagen in New Jerseywhere the potential settlement value was more than $50 million.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapmanat 240/629-3300.